Limitations of mirrorless with sports photography...

Hi Chris, New to the GH3 is an AF-ON option. In the Custom Menu, Page 1/8 under AF/AE Lock there are the three options seen on previous Lumix cameras but in addition there is a fourth option AF-ON. When this is selected and the Focus Mode Lever is set to AFC then continuous back button AF is available, just like a DSLR. Previously you got AF start and lock. See pages 53, 151 of the Owner's Manual which can be downloaded from the Panasonic website.

Also I find follow focus on moving subjects works best with the AF Mode on [1-Area] not [Focus Tracking] and the Active AF area placed in the center of the frame.

Could you provide a link to some of these excellent sports images you've gotten with your mirrorless gear?

Chris never said that mirrorless 'can't' do sports', he merely stated what is fact -- mirrorless lags behind DSLR systems for most fast action sports. It's is not a matter of having fast enough lenses, it is a matter of very good C-AF capabilities and EVF refresh rates.

I just finished shooting a 3 day women's tennis invitational, and to my surprise shot the whole thing using my E-M5 while my Olympus E-5 and wonderful 50-200mm ZD lens sat in a camera bag in the back of my car. That choice had everything to do with equipment size and lens reach more than anything else. I was actually amazed at my keeper rate, but I do believe the E-5 would have increased that rate -- solely because of the C-AF and optical VF.

I am a diehard, sold out m4/3 user now, but I can't ignore reality, and what Chris stated was both accurate and logical.

God Bless,

Greg

www.imagismhotos.com

www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com

www.pbase.com/daddyo

I agree with you. I also shot a 7D and was able to do better with both sports and Birds in Flight. Like yourself, my switch was based on size and the fact I'm getting on in years and really don't want to lug around a lot of weight. However, I haven't completely given up on trying to capture action. It takes more planning and anticipation and the acceptance of certain limitations. Here is an OMD shot from a youth rugby match. Certainly, it's not the equal to a high powered DSLR.

to the OP:

IMO due to the dof property of MFT, larger f/ value would always give more shadow dof (nicer background separation, to which a lot of FF users claimed better sport photo). And wide open lens would also allow a higher speed shutter (more fit for fast sport shooting?). For a pro sport photographer should well aware of it. Indeed could a medium range lenses and f/7.1 ~ f/8.0 yield good examples to demonstrate OP's point of view?

For nearly all tests, MFT lenses are at their best at wide open (or just a small stop down). I trust OP knows the difference between MFT and FF lenses.

The mirror less ones are ok, but not great. The only way to know 100% is to make at least an 8x10 prints. For that matter did it does not look great on screen that is low resolution to begin with a print will not help. Certain things you can slide by as a 4x6 print.

if its that questionable somtimes converting it to a B&W print works.

Chris Tofalos said:

Chris Tofalos wrote:

As I said, there's no problems with things like stage photography but for fast, erratically moving subjects mirrorless has a long way to go. The result is I've sort of lost my confidence with mirrorless for sports and no longer take the chances I used to (like zooming in really tight on a couple of players, which maximised quality and increased background blur).

Click to expand...

Mirrorless is the wrong tool for action, unless the photographer wants to work harder at it and accept less keepers for all the labor. Plus, a reasonable expectation of losing a defining moment shot.

Yes, a GH3 is almost guaranteed to be better than a G5 for AF and I suspect even better than my E-M5 though I am looking forward to see how well the E-P5 will do at AF.

axlotl said:

axlotl wrote:

Hi Chris, New to the GH3 is an AF-ON option. In the Custom Menu, Page 1/8 under AF/AE Lock there are the three options seen on previous Lumix cameras but in addition there is a fourth option AF-ON. When this is selected and the Focus Mode Lever is set to AFC then continuous back button AF is available, just like a DSLR. Previously you got AF start and lock. See pages 53, 151 of the Owner's Manual which can be downloaded from the Panasonic website.

Also I find follow focus on moving subjects works best with the AF Mode on [1-Area] not [Focus Tracking] and the Active AF area placed in the center of the frame.

Click to expand...

Hybrid PDAF may be the development which makes sports photography on mirrorless cameras possible. It may be early days yet, but I'll give my NEX a whirl...something I haven't tried yet. Have my doubts, though.

Dheorl said:

Dheorl wrote:
I can't deny that due to the amount of sports I do I'm considering a D3, but much less and I don't think the upgrade from m4/3 would make enough of a difference, especially something like a rebel.

Click to expand...

A Rebel's AF tracking and focus points will not be as accurate as those of the more pro-level DSLR's - but even if it's not so huge and bright, it still has a real TTL OVF with all the advantages of no lag / no jitter and phase-detect AF. I use a Rebel and I want no part of any EVF for shooting action.

Just my opinion of course, others have theirs and if they're happy with their gear and results, I say good for them.

Savas Kyprianides said:

Savas Kyprianides wrote:

Savas Kyprianides said:

Chris Tofalos wrote:

As I said, there's no problems with things like stage photography but for fast, erratically moving subjects mirrorless has a long way to go. The result is I've sort of lost my confidence with mirrorless for sports and no longer take the chances I used to (like zooming in really tight on a couple of players, which maximised quality and increased background blur).

Click to expand...

Mirrorless is the wrong tool for action, unless the photographer wants to work harder at it and accept less keepers for all the labor. Plus, a reasonable expectation of losing a defining moment shot.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the whole argument sounds like 'You CAN use a straight blade screwdriver to turn a Philips head screw, if you bear down hard and try to keep the driver from grinding away at the head of the screw. See, you don't need a Philips screw driver at all now do you?'

There is best tool for any job. A DSLR is still the best bet for shooting action sports. Period. Mirrorless cameras are great in other ways or for other things. One size does not fit all.

Midwest said:

Midwest wrote:

Sometimes the whole argument sounds like 'You CAN use a straight blade screwdriver to turn a Philips head screw, if you bear down hard and try to keep the driver from grinding away at the head of the screw. See, you don't need a Philips screw driver at all now do you?'

There is best tool for any job. A DSLR is still the best bet for shooting action sports. Period. Mirrorless cameras are great in other ways or for other things. One size does not fit all.

--
It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.

Click to expand...

Heh, that's the best analogy I've read on this topic so far. This is also a very good thread on the issue of using mirrorless for action photography involving multiple subjects with erratic movement. I'm working on a review of the GH3, and while I didn't quite have the same opportunity as Chris here, I'm inclined to agree.

To those of you who doubt his credentials, the two photos taken with the 7D are in the English Premier League - it's not something you can just walk in and shoot. I'm curious though, isn't the scene in EPL all 35mm sensors now?

My GH2 behaves just like how you describe your G5. My Oly does AF tracking with 3 fps and i can fire away just like that. It also tracks reasonably well, sometimes jumping to another subject sometimes failing to simply track and sometimes losing AF completely.

Another point is the EVF on my EPL5, which blackouts a shortwhile, not helpfull. Didn't buy the cam for AF tracking. Gh2 does not seem to black out, but it slows down a bit. EPL5 in total is really better than my Gh2 and that is way better than my G1.

I think it has a lot to do with the refresh of the EVF and enough computationspeed of the processing unit. CDAF is not ideal either. But we need more processing power to get rid of the delays AND PDAF/CDAF hybrid form.

Some may remember this from last summer. My recollection is that when the Olympics were finished the photos that were shown were mostly static shots. He apparently didn't have much luck for actual sports action shots.


Pro shooter to cover London 2012 using Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07/27/Dean-Mouhtarapoloulos-shoots-Panasonic-DMC-G5-at-Olympics

Frankly when I used my E-P3 for my son's soccer at first it sucked big time. The rear LCD was invisible in the harsh early morning light. So I got the VF2 EVF and it all changed. Frankly I had little trouble adjusting to live view after my previous Pentax K7 - and my results were better.

But then I don't use C-AF and just continually update the S-AF (which is virtually instantaneous)- not everyone's style, but it works for me. My only real issues were slow 3 fps and shallow buffer, but that's my problem for choosing a camera with those, specs, not the camera's fault ...





































--
Shoot the Light fantastic

Chris Tofalos said:

If I wanted to make my living shooting football I would simply have to have those Canons back (the 7D was the best sports photography camera I've used in 30 years)...

Click to expand...

An acknowledged weakness of the CSC system's contrast focusing system, mentioned in every review of these cameras. It's no secret.

I don't do sport or commissioned work now so My GH3, GH2 and E-PL5 are fine for me. If I did sport I'd use a DSLR, just as everyone else who wants the best results does.

There is no excuse for buying an unsuitable camera for a job. If someone buys a hammer to drive home a screw, you'd have to question their ability.

The obvious thing to do is keep the DSLRs for sport and use the MFT for what it is good for.

Savas Kyprianides said:

Savas Kyprianides wrote:

Mirrorless is the wrong tool for action, unless the photographer wants to work harder at it and accept less keepers for all the labor. Plus, a reasonable expectation of losing a defining moment shot.

Click to expand...

You've just about summed up my feelings, Savas. I'd previously used an EOS-1n but when I added a 50D (handier for general work) I was disappointed with the poor percentage of keepers. I was still comfortable flipping that camera upright for shots like the two pro players going up for the header (which the 7D locked onto with incredible speed) but I'm almost frightened of attempting that with the G5.

I am going to try the G5 at a professional level game. I approach those games from a different viewpoint: I'm looking for tight, mostly upright action whereas with yesterday's amateur match I was trying to tell the story of the game. When I do I think I'll get better pictures but I'm almost certain my keeper percentage will be low.

As a few replies (including Savas) have stated, it's 'horses for courses' and mirrorless wouldn't be my system of choice if I was working regularly with sports.

But I'm not and I'm more than happy with my Lumix system for everything else. It's a pleasure to work with such a lightweight, compact system, the image quality is excellent, the cost quite reasonable and the built-in optical correction a real bonus (every Canon lens I've ever owned, including 'L' series, has exhibited colour fringing).

I'm also fairly confident that one day the CAF & Vf problems will be sorted. Roll on that day!

Chris

yslee1 said:

yslee1 wrote:

To those of you who doubt his credentials, the two photos taken with the 7D are in the English Premier League - it's not something you can just walk in and shoot. I'm curious though, isn't the scene in EPL all 35mm sensors now?

Click to expand...

I haven't done an EPL (FAPL) game for a couple of years, yslee1, and I think that shot of the Man U players celebrating was from my last game.

The big agencies (like Getty, Reuters PA, etc), have driven independent freelances like myself almost completely out of the game. (The NUJ are currently looking into a formal complaint to the OFT about this situation). I do do some work for an agency based in Liverpool who still have an FAPL licence and can get to a match if I wish - I've just lost my enthusiasm. The agencies, who have deals with the newspapers & magazines to supply all their picture needs for a set fee, have a stranglehold. I've covered games where I know I've had the best shot of a particular scene but it hardly ever got used. The end user has to pay extra to use my pix and that rarely happens in today's financial climate.

The latest EOS-1(X?) is FF and you'll find most pro photographers using two bodies: one with a 400/f2.8 and the other a shorter prime like a 135/f2.0 or a 70-200/f2.8. I used to use the same set-up for most of my career but found the 7D to be so quick at AF I was more than happy to use just one 7D and a 70-200/f2.8 on it. The 1.6x crop gave me a similar range to the two-body option (even closer with FF) and I didn't waste any time swapping cameras, so could follow the action continuously, which was certainly an advantage.

Throughout my career I've always tried to do things differently. 30 years ago I started off with Canon when nearly everyone else was using Nikons. I've always tried to get a different position to shoot from from the 'pack' and, when competition was farer, that often paid off. Now I'm using relatively tiny mirrorless cameras. Some colleagues have asked do I think these tiny cameras adversely affect my professional credibility; I just smile...

Chris

Nice shots!

bluelemmy said:

bluelemmy wrote:

The obvious thing to do is keep the DSLRs for sport and use the MFT for what it is good for.

Click to expand...

Which was exactly what I did - until I decided I didn't want to do much sport any more (see previous post)...

wolfie said:

wolfie wrote:

Frankly when I used my E-P3 for my son's soccer at first it sucked big time. The rear LCD was invisible in the harsh early morning light. So I got the VF2 EVF and it all changed. Frankly I had little trouble adjusting to live view after my previous Pentax K7 - and my results were better.

But then I don't use C-AF and just continually update the S-AF (which is virtually instantaneous)- not everyone's style, but it works for me. My only real issues were slow 3 fps and shallow buffer, but that's my problem for choosing a camera with those, specs, not the camera's fault ...























--
Shoot the Light fantastic

Click to expand...

When people on the other side of the field are equally in focus to the players in the middle of the field, you're doing it wrong.